Decade in review: How the Internet ruined everything(2010.newsweek.com)
2010.newsweek.com
Decade in review: How the Internet ruined everything
http://2010.newsweek.com/essay/a-decade-of-destruction.html
6 comments
Isn't this written by the real life Fake Steve? Which shows the irony that someone with a successful voice on the web comes across as Captain Obvious when tied to the "main stream media" column format.
Wouldn't this piece be much more interesting in the Fake Steve voice? Or maybe it says something that "Fake Steve" would never discuss something this boring in the first place.
Wouldn't this piece be much more interesting in the Fake Steve voice? Or maybe it says something that "Fake Steve" would never discuss something this boring in the first place.
Now you mention it, it would have been a lot more interesting if it had been 'How I helped to ruin everything (else)' by (fake) Steve Jobs.
I think it is mostly a statement on how the internet will eventually ruin the likes of newsweek. I'm still not convinced that what will replace it is better though.
What is this 'will' of which you speak? :)
Seriously, I think much of the decline of old media was self-imposed and started long before the internet enjoyed anything like its current reach. Flash back to 1999, and while the net was a wonderful thing in many ways it offered nothing like the breadth or depth of information available today. On the other hand, media had already become the playthings of MBA holders, by which I mean that growth had overtaken stability or longevity as the marker of economic health. Brands and reputations began to be seen as fungible commodities, partly because of the IPO/merger mania that took hold during the dotcom boom.
Back then I was still an avid consumer of print media, because it filled need that the internet couldn't supply (and to a large extent, still doesn't). For example, I read Scientific American religiously. Then, the publishers of the magazine decided to change the format: instead of something that resembled a journal for the educated but non-specialist reader, they tried to reposition themselves as an upmarket version of Popular Science - more graphics, more headline bait, shorter articles. I got a sinking feeling on picking up one issue with a Top 10 reasons to read SA wrapper which included the gem: 'you don't have to read the whole magazine!' Really? Way to devalue your own product, guys. I quit buying it about a year later when I noticed it had taken me only two hours to read the latest issue and a comparison with back issues revealed they had switched to a larger font so the page count was about the same but the amount of content had fallen by about 20% (to say nothing of the trend towards filler articles about the 'science' of golf balls, baldness and similar fluff). I still check it on the newsstand every month, and every month it gets a little sadder. Their website doesn't exactly distinguish it from the competition either - in fact these days, New Scientist comes across as a more serious read.
I don't think Internet killed Scientific American - I find it harder to keep up with science news now, and I'm less informed than I used to be: no single resource gives me the kind of in-depth knowledge and editorial assistance I used to get from the print edition, and if they turned the clock back on their format tomorrow I'd start reading it again in a flash. I still read The Economist in print every week: they've got more colorful and 'designed' in recent years, but not at the expense of existing quality. And they seem to be doing just fine: there is still a healthy audience for long-form journalism. What's different in the latter case is that The Economist built upon their core competency and supplemented it, rather than trading away part of their 'brand capital' for greater breadth but less depth.
I know I'm not the typical consumer. But as well as being a loyal reader, I'm also an enthusiastic promoter of media I like. When Scientific American lost me as a reader, they also lost someone who would push 8 or 10 other readers towards the magazine, via everything from recommendations to gift subscriptions. Shifting their brand towards short-term currency devalued it significantly; now every issue is targeted at the first-time buyer, and become disposable in the process.
This kind of myopia seems to be endemic in the media business. The San Francisco Chonicle, which has suffered the worst revenue drop of any major newspaper (25%!) over the last year, recently completed its shift towards a new strategy...which strategy consists of making the paper almost tabloid-sized and printing on glossy, magazine-quality paper. I hope this makes it somehow cheaper to print and distribute, because I sure as hell don't consider the paper stock and color saturation as significant factors when I purchase a paper - I am (surprise) drawn the by the significance and detail of the stories featured on the front page - which in the case of the Chronicle, continue to decline, even as they feature bigger and more colorful pictures of their columnists, people whose careers I care nothing about. Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have now moved in for the kill, adding Bay Area sections to captured disaffected consumers who have given up on the local paper.
Eye candy and presentation have their place in media: it is a battle for attention, and being able to attract the customer with a better presentation does drive sales. But publishing is a business oriented around repeat sales of a highly perishable commodity (information) and the repeatability of those sales is very much a function of how much time customers have already invested in your product. You can quantify how many seconds I stare at papers on the stand before picking it up, or how it scores in focus groups, but what's going to make buy your product again (and make it valuable to your advertisers) is the amount of my free time I choose to spend with it after the buying decision. If I can't find more than 20 minutes' worth of interesting content in there, why keep buying it? Has anyone ever written to an editor to complain that the newspaper or magazine they bought contains too much information and they found it too interesting and time consuming to read regularly? Of course not. Of course, the level of depth isn't for everyone; that's why some people read the New York Post instead of the New York Times. But if you're working at the latter and have a circulation problem, it's unlikely to be due to an excess of quality.
Seriously, I think much of the decline of old media was self-imposed and started long before the internet enjoyed anything like its current reach. Flash back to 1999, and while the net was a wonderful thing in many ways it offered nothing like the breadth or depth of information available today. On the other hand, media had already become the playthings of MBA holders, by which I mean that growth had overtaken stability or longevity as the marker of economic health. Brands and reputations began to be seen as fungible commodities, partly because of the IPO/merger mania that took hold during the dotcom boom.
Back then I was still an avid consumer of print media, because it filled need that the internet couldn't supply (and to a large extent, still doesn't). For example, I read Scientific American religiously. Then, the publishers of the magazine decided to change the format: instead of something that resembled a journal for the educated but non-specialist reader, they tried to reposition themselves as an upmarket version of Popular Science - more graphics, more headline bait, shorter articles. I got a sinking feeling on picking up one issue with a Top 10 reasons to read SA wrapper which included the gem: 'you don't have to read the whole magazine!' Really? Way to devalue your own product, guys. I quit buying it about a year later when I noticed it had taken me only two hours to read the latest issue and a comparison with back issues revealed they had switched to a larger font so the page count was about the same but the amount of content had fallen by about 20% (to say nothing of the trend towards filler articles about the 'science' of golf balls, baldness and similar fluff). I still check it on the newsstand every month, and every month it gets a little sadder. Their website doesn't exactly distinguish it from the competition either - in fact these days, New Scientist comes across as a more serious read.
I don't think Internet killed Scientific American - I find it harder to keep up with science news now, and I'm less informed than I used to be: no single resource gives me the kind of in-depth knowledge and editorial assistance I used to get from the print edition, and if they turned the clock back on their format tomorrow I'd start reading it again in a flash. I still read The Economist in print every week: they've got more colorful and 'designed' in recent years, but not at the expense of existing quality. And they seem to be doing just fine: there is still a healthy audience for long-form journalism. What's different in the latter case is that The Economist built upon their core competency and supplemented it, rather than trading away part of their 'brand capital' for greater breadth but less depth.
I know I'm not the typical consumer. But as well as being a loyal reader, I'm also an enthusiastic promoter of media I like. When Scientific American lost me as a reader, they also lost someone who would push 8 or 10 other readers towards the magazine, via everything from recommendations to gift subscriptions. Shifting their brand towards short-term currency devalued it significantly; now every issue is targeted at the first-time buyer, and become disposable in the process.
This kind of myopia seems to be endemic in the media business. The San Francisco Chonicle, which has suffered the worst revenue drop of any major newspaper (25%!) over the last year, recently completed its shift towards a new strategy...which strategy consists of making the paper almost tabloid-sized and printing on glossy, magazine-quality paper. I hope this makes it somehow cheaper to print and distribute, because I sure as hell don't consider the paper stock and color saturation as significant factors when I purchase a paper - I am (surprise) drawn the by the significance and detail of the stories featured on the front page - which in the case of the Chronicle, continue to decline, even as they feature bigger and more colorful pictures of their columnists, people whose careers I care nothing about. Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have now moved in for the kill, adding Bay Area sections to captured disaffected consumers who have given up on the local paper.
Eye candy and presentation have their place in media: it is a battle for attention, and being able to attract the customer with a better presentation does drive sales. But publishing is a business oriented around repeat sales of a highly perishable commodity (information) and the repeatability of those sales is very much a function of how much time customers have already invested in your product. You can quantify how many seconds I stare at papers on the stand before picking it up, or how it scores in focus groups, but what's going to make buy your product again (and make it valuable to your advertisers) is the amount of my free time I choose to spend with it after the buying decision. If I can't find more than 20 minutes' worth of interesting content in there, why keep buying it? Has anyone ever written to an editor to complain that the newspaper or magazine they bought contains too much information and they found it too interesting and time consuming to read regularly? Of course not. Of course, the level of depth isn't for everyone; that's why some people read the New York Post instead of the New York Times. But if you're working at the latter and have a circulation problem, it's unlikely to be due to an excess of quality.
What an amazingly insightful comment.
Our Scientific American experience is pretty much parallel, I have about 30 years worth of them I think, and I still feel that canceling my subscription left a hole.
News on the whole (be it scientific or otherwise) is being dumbed down, everything has to fit our fast paced lives and has to literally scream for attention or it is lost in the background noise.
I think that it is too late to turn that around now though.
The papers that appeared in Scientific American before they switched to 'full page color photographs with three words on them' were of a different grade as well, more in-depth, less sexy. But you actually learned something from every issue.
Our Scientific American experience is pretty much parallel, I have about 30 years worth of them I think, and I still feel that canceling my subscription left a hole.
News on the whole (be it scientific or otherwise) is being dumbed down, everything has to fit our fast paced lives and has to literally scream for attention or it is lost in the background noise.
I think that it is too late to turn that around now though.
The papers that appeared in Scientific American before they switched to 'full page color photographs with three words on them' were of a different grade as well, more in-depth, less sexy. But you actually learned something from every issue.
...but they figured out how to write link-bait titles!
Well-written survey of the damage.
Newspapers: tradition-bound. In about 1985 I wrote an article about shopping for a home computer. The local newspaper editor refused it with the comment "Aren't those kind of a niche product?" Their formula had worked a long, long time; they were asleep. Funny though: their newsrooms were full of boxen when the 'net took off. Obviously a piece of wire between the newsroom and me made the presses obsolete.
TV was used to deciding what was good enough for us. And they added more and more advertising until a two-hour movie became a four-hour movie, so chopped up that it was impossible to enjoy. So once the net starts hitting them, do they compete by producing better shows? Nah, they go for the cheesy easy. Good riddance.
Bangs leaves out the telcos ... who've also done everything they could to stall the inevitable. Google buying Gizmo5 is another symptom that their money-grubbing, metro-WiFi-blocking, stonewalling asses are getting nearer the lawnmower. Long live fiber, long live the net!
Newspapers: tradition-bound. In about 1985 I wrote an article about shopping for a home computer. The local newspaper editor refused it with the comment "Aren't those kind of a niche product?" Their formula had worked a long, long time; they were asleep. Funny though: their newsrooms were full of boxen when the 'net took off. Obviously a piece of wire between the newsroom and me made the presses obsolete.
TV was used to deciding what was good enough for us. And they added more and more advertising until a two-hour movie became a four-hour movie, so chopped up that it was impossible to enjoy. So once the net starts hitting them, do they compete by producing better shows? Nah, they go for the cheesy easy. Good riddance.
Bangs leaves out the telcos ... who've also done everything they could to stall the inevitable. Google buying Gizmo5 is another symptom that their money-grubbing, metro-WiFi-blocking, stonewalling asses are getting nearer the lawnmower. Long live fiber, long live the net!
Newsweek's audience isn't people on Hacker News. Shallow to us doesn't mean it's shallow to them. I thought the tone / depth was appropriate.
It works to show the underlying thread in the downfall of 'the old business model', but it would be nice to have a forward-looking extension of the article. Okay, we know that internet changed the game - great. But now that it's becoming the new norm, what are the watchouts...what's next?
There's an interesting article that attempts to touch on the "what next" on the HBR blog that talks about the digital economy's weakness/flaw written by Umair Haque: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/11/facebooks_sca...
There's an interesting article that attempts to touch on the "what next" on the HBR blog that talks about the digital economy's weakness/flaw written by Umair Haque: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/11/facebooks_sca...
Blaming the internet for the downfall of print media is like blaming low pressure for the evaporation of water.
Basically, this is a retread of articles I saw in 1996, with all the verbs changed from future to past perfect.
And Newsweek still has plenty of skilled writers on staff, plus enough readership that they could have interviewed anyone they wanted for this story, from Bill Gates or Al Gore to...well, anyone. They're read by millions of ordinary Americans, and have decades of experience in telling complex, multidimensional stories and making them accessible for a broad audience. Instead, a a 500 word essay which was apparently written by Captain Obvious. I know 'review of the year/decade/century' articles are superficial by nature, but this reads like a sidebar in an 8th grade social studies book.
I preferred the 'decade in seven minutes' video at this page: http://2010.newsweek.com/essay/one-dazing-decade.html not really my preferred media style, but at least it has a high signal to noise ratio.